Talk:Alleged Saudi role in the September 11 attacks/Archive 1

Merge
Dr Strauss  talk  18:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC) How is this any different from another conspiracy theory?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * NadirAli نادر علی: Please consider that almost no source have made such a speculation! Then it can't be called a conspiracy theory. I suggest you to close the discussion unless you can find enough sources regarding this claim. Tnx. -- M h hossein   talk 02:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mhhossein, both articles contain but allegations. That articles lists what is known to some as "conspiracy theories" what makes this any different? I would also like some additional users to offer their opinions. I checked the 911 conspiracy theories article and this can easily fit in there as a section.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The article's notable enough to stand alone. It's not a conspiracy theory but allegations based on the existing documents (see this fresh source for example). More over, per merging merging should be avoided if "the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) article," and we know that the topic can be expanded considering various sources dealing with the possibility of Saudi involvement in the incident. -- M h hossein   talk 04:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Proposed But isn't a conspiracy theory a form of allegation. It all goes back to suggestion.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Take care of WP:OR. -- M h hossein   talk 12:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The content appears similar to conspiracy theories which allege 9/11 was an inside job. Factually, it has never been proven that the Saudi state or security apparatus had any links to the hijackers. The farthest this has ever gone is in the shape of a lawsuit put forth by families suing Saudi Arabia for the attacks. Though that is a completely different thing from any proven connection. Judging by the article length,I don't see what is there that cannot be discussed in the main article.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has never been proven! but that does not make the article a CP. Btw, the guideline says that the merger should be avoided if "the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) article." In other words, we should consider the possibility of its expansion, not merely its current status. -- M h hossein   talk 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The subject is intensively covered by various reliable sources. Moreover, Merging the articles is vain specially when we know that both articles can potentially be expanded into larger ones. Saff V. (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)